[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080508153822.0c4dd6e9.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 15:38:22 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
davidel@...ilserver.org, mtk.manpages@...il.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/18] flag parameters: paccept
On Tue, 6 May 2008 17:18:07 -0400
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com> wrote:
> This patch is by far the most complex in the series. It adds a new syscall
> paccept. This syscall differs from accept in that it adds (at the userlevel)
> two additional parameters:
>
> - a signal mask
> - a flags value
>
> The flags parameter can be used to set flag like SOCK_CLOEXEC. This is
> imlpemented here as well. Some people argued that this is a property
> which should be inherited from the file desriptor for the server but
> this is against POSIX. Additionally, we really want the signal mask
> parameter as well (similar to pselect, ppoll, etc). So an interface
> change in inevitable.
>
> The flag value is the same as for socket and socketpair. I think
> diverging here will only create confusion. Similar to the filesystem
> interfaces where the use of the O_* constants differs, it is acceptable
> here.
>
> The signal mask is handled as for pselect etc. The mask is temporarily
> installed for the thread and removed before the call returns. I modeled
> the code after pselect. If there is a problem it's likely also in
> pselect.
>
> For architectures which use socketcall I maintained this interface
> instead of adding a system call. The symmetry shouldn't be broken.
>
> The following test must be adjusted for architectures other than x86 and
> x86-64 and in case the syscall numbers changed.
>
I have a bit of a mystery going on here.
> ...
>
> +asmlinkage long sys_paccept(int fd, struct sockaddr __user *upeer_sockaddr,
> + int __user *upeer_addrlen,
> + const sigset_t __user *sigmask,
> + size_t sigsetsize, int flags)
> +{
> + sigset_t ksigmask, sigsaved;
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (sigmask) {
> + /* XXX: Don't preclude handling different sized sigset_t's. */
> + if (sigsetsize != sizeof(sigset_t))
> + return -EINVAL;
> + if (copy_from_user(&ksigmask, sigmask, sizeof(ksigmask)))
> + return -EFAULT;
> +
> + sigdelsetmask(&ksigmask, sigmask(SIGKILL)|sigmask(SIGSTOP));
> + sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK, &ksigmask, &sigsaved);
> + }
> +
> + ret = do_accept(fd, upeer_sockaddr, upeer_addrlen, flags);
> +
> + if (ret < 0 && signal_pending(current)) {
> + /*
> + * Don't restore the signal mask yet. Let do_signal() deliver
> + * the signal on the way back to userspace, before the signal
> + * mask is restored.
> + */
> + if (sigmask) {
> + memcpy(¤t->saved_sigmask, &sigsaved,
> + sizeof(sigsaved));
> + set_thread_flag(TIF_RESTORE_SIGMASK);
> + }
> + } else if (sigmask)
> + sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK, &sigsaved, NULL);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
Some architectures (including x86) do not implement TIF_RESTORE_SIGMASK.
Ah, you must have prepared the patches against something prehistoric like
2.6.25. Please prefer to prepare 2.6.x patches against the 2.6.x tree, not
the 2.6.x-1 tree?
Whatever you're trying to do here, we'll need to find a non-arch-specific
way of doing it.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists